Should lines with an irregular frequency be reduced to allow a clockface timetable?

[PTR 444]

I am talking about lines which have at least one train per hour but at a frequency which isn’t divisible by 60, and hence doesn’t allow departures at the same time every hour. Examples of such lines include the Avonmouth branch (every 40 mins), Abbey Line (every 45 mins) and Southminster branch (every 40 mins). While these frequencies make sense for operational purposes, it isn’t helpful to the passenger to have to remember different times each hour, unlike a line with a 30 or 60 minute frequency where trains depart at the same time every hour.

With the possible exception of the Avonmouth line which does merit a half-hourly frequency, I can’t see any infrastructure improvements being viable on these lines, so the only way to achieve a clockface timetable would be to reduce the frequency to every 60 minutes. This would mean a longer wait for passengers and stabling but it could be made up for by extending the service beyond the branch. For example, if Southminster went from 40 mins to hourly, the frequency cut could be made up for by extending through to London Liverpool Street in place of one of the 3tph from Southend Victoria.

Do you think it is better to have clockface frequencies on these lines, or leave them with their current irregular timings?

 

[Bletchleyite]

There may be pathing reasons, but I'd suggest in most cases yes. Certainly for St Albans as they would have enough slack to plan a quality connection to specific trains to/from London.

Exception: if the frequency is below hourly. I'd rather every 1h10 (say) as Ormskirk-Preston used to be than clockface two hourly.

 

[JonathanH]

Do you think it is better to have clockface frequencies on these lines, or leave them with their current irregular timings?

If the operators thought an hourly service was preferable, that is what would be offered. They obviously see some value in the increased frequency subject to the infrastructure limitations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the operators thought an hourly service was preferable, that is what would be offered. They obviously see some value in the increased frequency subject to the infrastructure limitations.

That shows a rather high level of confidence in the regional TOCs, many of which are the utter opposite of customer-focused.

 

[Bald Rick]

It comes down to what frequency will deliver the most revenue. On the abbey line, the cost of the 45 minute frequency is almost exactly the same as the cost of an hourly frequency - the only difference being a few dozen kWh of electricity and some brake blocks. I’m reasonably sure the 45 minute frequency brings in more punters than hourly. A significant majority of passengers are not making connections at Watford (even when it was hourly) so the better frequency will generate more passengers.

 

[Ianno87]

There is also the issue of whether "clockface" actually matters any more, if people whack open their App / Google Maps/whatever to see the next train is out of habit. You don't need to memorise the timetable as much any more.

Which will be more attractive if it's 22 minutes away (on a 45 minute frequency) than 37 minutes away (on an hourly frequency)

 

[telstarbox]

I would assume that below a 20 mins frequency, passengers aim for a specific departure rather than turning up for "the next one".

 

[507020]

I would assume that below a 20 mins frequency, passengers aim for a specific departure rather than turning up for "the next one".

I would say that’s about right. It might be worth thinking about running a 15 or 12 minute frequency now on some lines instead of 20.

 

[The Ham]

My view is that anything less than every 30 minutes and the more frequent the better.

 

[tbtc]

I guess it partly depends on what the "sacrifice" is to provide a clock face timetable - there's a huge difference between the "seventy minute" timetable mentioned above and every two hours - that's quite a reduction in the number of services. But "every fifty five minutes" to "hourly" isn't much of a sacrifice

There's also the problems of

1. Is there one specific train per hour that you're wanting to connect with? Some branches have a connection to only one service in a typical hour, some have a variety (should a Windermere - Oxenholme shuttle be timed to meet the Manchester/ Birmingham/ London service?). Is a Surbury branch service better focussing on a connection with a "north east" bound service (to Colchester/ Ipswich/ Norwich) or "west" bound service (to London etc)? Some main lines have frequent connections in both directions but others don't.

2. Would the branch line service be able to terminate at "random" times past the hour, without conflicting with main line services? It's fine for a Windermere service to terminate at Oxenholme/ start from Oxenholme as the platform is separate from the "main line" platforms - so the Windermere services could run at any time past the hour without conflicts (ignoring for a moment whether that would be good/ bad for passengers, I'm just talking about the ability to run at random times past the hour at terminate in the western platform). However some "branches" require you to cross/share the main line. Off the top of my head, there's the Conwy Valley branch, which needs to cross the Chester - Holyhead line on the flat and then shares the line from Llandudno Junction into Llandudno with the hourly Manchester service, so it's got to be pathed with those in mind. The Barton on Humber branch works through to Cleethorpes, so needs to be pathed around the "fixed" times of the Manchester - Cleethorpes service as well as other trains through Grimsby, so there's a lot less flexibility to run it more frequently - even though it's only a bi-hourly train doing a round trip of around forty five miles

3. Some branch lines terminate at a "destination" station (e.g. the Avonmouth branch terminates at Temple Meads, which is going to be the place that the majority of passengers are heading to. But some branches terminate in fairly minor places (e.g. the frequency on the Milford Haven branch there's not much demand to get to "just" Whitland, you need to be connecting with services towards Carmerthen/ Swansea/ Cardiff - I know Milford Haven isn't a self contained shuttle but there are some branches that have a main line connection at a fairly minor place - the Newquay branch at Par - there's not a huge amount going in in Par, so incoming.outgoing Newquay passengers would probably prioritise connections over frequency - not much point in a service that commences/terminates at Par which doesn't have a mainline connection). Some might be a bit harder to categorise - e.g. an outsider might assume that the St Albans branch is all about getting people to change at Watford for a fast London service, whereas a local knows that the majority of passengers are only going as far as Watford.

 

[507020]

My view is that anything less than every 30 minutes and the more frequent the better.

If you were to just turn up at a random point in the hour without checking anything, then the average wait time for a train is half the frequency. An average wait time of 10 minutes seems perfectly acceptable to me. When the average wait time was 15 minutes on Merseyrail last year, I didn’t find it acceptable at all, although it seems to be on other lines for some reason.

 

[30907]

That shows a rather high level of confidence in the regional TOCs, many of which are the utter opposite of customer-focused.

Not sure that customer-focus and reducing frequency belong in the same sentence

I would say that, for (sub)urban journeys, once the frequency drops below every 30min, a clockface timetable isn't that important, as people will still want to plan their trips by the timetable.

Avonmouth is a repeating pattern over 2hr ; the Abbey line is "about" 45-minutely - it could presumably be every 40min which would be neater. But see my previous sentence, I am not sure it matters either way.

Southminster operates to a "pure" 40min offpeak frequency, and that fits very well with the 20min Southend service. There is presumably enough business these days to justify it (I haven't been there since the 70s when it was a very rural branch line and South Woodham Ferrers only on the drawing board!)

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you were to just turn up at a random point in the hour without checking anything, then the average wait time for a train is half the frequency. An average wait time of 10 minutes seems perfectly acceptable to me. When the average wait time was 15 minutes on Merseyrail last year, I didn’t find it acceptable at all, although it seems to be on other lines for some reason.

There are other things that impact that. Despite the effective frequency to Bletchley from Euston being just 2tph (it's actually 3 but there's barely any point using one of the two slows), I'm quite happy to show up on spec, sometimes even letting a train go that's there but packed, because you can get a coffee and a bag of sweets, use the loo then take your preferred seat as soon as the inbound arrives. By contrast if my home was Bedford I'd be planning my arrival at City Thameslink (or whatever) for a specific train, because there are no facilities there other than standing around on a crowded platform.

So from home I'd always aim for a specific train (as the waiting facilities at home are better than the facilities at any railway station). It's helpful to know those times as it saves looking them up.

 

[Ianno87]

Avonmouth is a repeating pattern over 2hr ; the Abbey line is "about" 45-minutely - it could presumably be every 40min which would be neater. But see my previous sentence, I am not sure it matters either way.

Slow Line trains at Watford Junction to/from Euston are roughly every 15 minutes, so the 45 minutes aligns with that and gives a reasonably consistent connection time.

 

[HST43257]

Slow Line trains at Watford Junction to/from Euston are roughly every 15 minutes, so the 45 minutes aligns with that and gives a reasonably consistent connection time.

How about in the other direction - What if St Albans people want to go to Birmingham?

 

[cle]

Although isn't the Abbey line one of the most likely candidates on the Reopening investment thingy wotsit, discussed elsewhere and re-upped in a mag article the other week? The study being different permutations of 30 min service (shuttles vs direct) - and the Brickett Wood platform/loop to facilitate.

I remember Melbourne, when I lived there, had a big 40 minute frequency obsession for suburban trains, regional ones and even buses - very unintuitive.

 

[Ianno87]

How about in the other direction - What if St Albans people want to go to Birmingham?

That's a minority need. Design for the majority, not the minority.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Slow Line trains at Watford Junction to/from Euston are roughly every 15 minutes, so the 45 minutes aligns with that and gives a reasonably consistent connection time.

When I operated (and planned) that branch , great care was taken to provide decent connections am from the Abbey towards Euston and pm towards home. Peak times. Then - through traffic beyond Watford was not heavy , but "reasonable"

We even tried connection opportunities at Harrow and Wealdstone onto the northern section of the DC towards Watford. Off the AC electrics.


Clock face timetables are all very good , but subtle changes have to be allowed for at certain times to cater for "known" flows - work and school / colleges for example. Being a purist is all very well , but you must know and cater for your traffics.

 

[Bald Rick]

How about in the other direction - What if St Albans people want to go to Birmingham?

A journey I do regularly. The connection works roughly half the time (ie less than 20 minutes between trains). Usually I am the only one making the connection. It’s not a big market, at all.

Although isn't the Abbey line one of the most likely candidates on the Reopening investment thingy wotsit, discussed elsewhere and re-upped in a mag article the other week? The study being different permutations of 30 min service (shuttles vs direct) - and the Brickett Wood platform/loop to facilitate.

I remember Melbourne, when I lived there, had a big 40 minute frequency obsession for suburban trains, regional ones and even buses - very unintuitive.

It is, although I can’t understand how it got into the ‘Restoring Your Railway’ programme, as it already exists! And the problem is ... as I’ve said before ... not many people want to travel between St Albans and Watford. I used a high peak train towards Watford last week - 39 people on it, all of whom, went to Watford. A half hourly frequency is not going to come remotely close to paying for itself.

 

[cle]

So there is no meaningful flow from Watford North, Garston etc to London or to the WLL? Which might increase with 2tph - or enable more TOD?

 

[Bald Rick]

So there is no meaningful flow from Watford North, Garston etc to London or to the WLL? Which might increase with 2tph - or enable more TOD?

Not on the trains I get, where well over half of the people on the branch head for the exit at Watford. Going half hourly won’t change that.

Bear in mind that going half hourly nearly doubles the operating cost of the branch. Another unit (with power and maintenance), another 5-6 drivers and 5-6 conductors. Easily £2m a year, probably more. You would need to more than double passenger numbers on the branch to get close to making that back.

 

[CyrusWuff]

It is, although I can’t understand how it got into the ‘Restoring Your Railway’ programme, as it already exists!

I know it's a bit of a stretch, but the bid is to restore the former passing loop at Bricket Wood, so it's technically correct. (Which is, of course, the best kind of correct).

 

[cle]

Not on the trains I get, where well over half of the people on the branch head for the exit at Watford. Going half hourly won’t change that.

Bear in mind that going half hourly nearly doubles the operating cost of the branch. Another unit (with power and maintenance), another 5-6 drivers and 5-6 conductors. Easily £2m a year, probably more. You would need to more than double passenger numbers on the branch to get close to making that back.

So you don't think it's worth it? How about the direct services, in that study?

 

[A0]

So there is no meaningful flow from Watford North, Garston etc to London or to the WLL? Which might increase with 2tph - or enable more TOD?

Watford North is less than a mile from Watford Junction - for the majority of people in the catchment area of Watford North it's probably easier to walk / catch the bus to Watford Junction rather than try to plan around the Abbey Line branch. The attached map from Google Earth shows the point quite nicely.

 

[Bald Rick]

So you don't think it's worth it? How about the direct services, in that study?

no chance of direct services, and never has been.

 

[stuu]

It is, although I can’t understand how it got into the ‘Restoring Your Railway’ programme, as it already exists! And the problem is ... as I’ve said before ... not many people want to travel between St Albans and Watford. I used a high peak train towards Watford last week - 39 people on it, all of whom, went to Watford. A half hourly frequency is not going to come remotely close to paying for itself.

I'm not sure that I believe that, lots and lots of people do travel between St Albans and Watford, I used to be one of them, and a good proportion of the people at my old employer did the same journey. What is undoubtedly true is that not many people want to travel from St Albans Abbey Station, given it's location, and the limited service. Anyone wanting Watford Town centre will be a bit put off too, even though it's not that far. Half hourly sounds a lot more attractive, but it does nothing for the location of the actual station(s)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure that I believe that, lots and lots of people do travel between St Albans and Watford, I used to be one of them, and a good proportion of the people at my old employer did the same journey. What is undoubtedly true is that not many people want to travel from St Albans Abbey Station, given it's location, and the limited service. Anyone wanting Watford Town centre will be a bit put off too, even though it's not that far. Half hourly sounds a lot more attractive, but it does nothing for the location of the actual station(s)

That is why the light rail idea seems reasonably solid - it could run on-street to more useful places both ends.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

That is why the light rail idea seems reasonably solid - it could run on-street to more useful places both ends.

I think if you cannot get a business case for a passing loop and another unit / crews etc, - the concept of light rail into the heart of Watford or to somewhere useful at the other end like Hatfield / Welwyn - commendable though it is , is not going to happen.

It might happen if we had the foresight and cash as in parts of Europe.

The commendable 321 bus (Watford to Luton via St Albans) does an excellent job , but is compromised by road congestion at the Watford end. The location of the stations , does not help - but of course they have to be near the railway.

 

[stuu]

That is why the light rail idea seems reasonably solid - it could run on-street to more useful places both ends.

Possibly, although I'm not sure how that could be routed at the St Albans end, I can't see a tram getting up Holywell Hill. It might (whisper) be better as a b*sway

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Possibly, although I'm not sure how that could be routed at the St Albans end, I can't see a tram getting up Holywell Hill. It might (whisper) be better as a b*sway

There have been some fantasy (sorry "innovative") ideas in the past as to how a tram could negotiate Holywell Hill (thinking of San Francisco here) , let alone the rest of the city. Getting across Watford equally challenging.

I hate to say it , but the actual costs of a heavy rail line , which even in my day carried at best a 1000 pax a day (much less now I suggest and not much revenue collected) , might need a long hard look and dare I say , a bus way with simple signals and passing loops signalled (I think they call them traffic lights) could produce a more frequent service and at less capital and operating cost. Say Bricket Wood to Watford to avoid the Watford traffic issues.

I realise I am now sounding like Lance Ibbotson here (one time GM of the Southern Region , who , in his retrirement advocated mass rail /road conversions which did not end well)

Will post this and await comments. Going a bit OT here.